Why are liberals so condescending? [Washington Post article]

[Corn]

Olbermann by a factor of 10?

Poisoned by his own dart..........D'oh!

 

[soccerballtux]

I think he's a buddhist, or very close to some eastern religions or something.

I dunno. The Buddhists I know are very nice people. Cool, friendly, helpful, and nonjudgmental. Definitely unlike Dari the poster here. :hmm:

we talking about loony moony (har har I feel clever yes?? sigh way to disprove my agenda about libs being more condescending lol) I mean moonbeam here? I just remember reading a few extraordinarily existential posts by him, and I think I recall him mentioning some buddhist book he was reading. So that's why I thought that.

 

[stateofbeasley]

Wrong. I'd argue that most rational common sense thinkers judged the health care bill on its merits (it sucked),

The non-partisan CBO concluded that the bill would have saved money and insured tens of millions of currently uninsured. The basic ideas behind the bill were sound: a mandate of insurance in exchange for no denial for prior conditions, and subsidies for the poorest of Americans. The vast majority of people -- those on Medicaid and with employer insurance, would not have seen any drastic changes.

This model works well in Western Europe, and it leaves the insurance and medical care in the hands of the private sector.

The worst excesses, the bribes to Ben Nelson and Mary Laundru, would never have survived the House/Senate reconciliation process. Myself and everyone else not living in Nebraska or Louisiana would have raised hell if there was a chance of this sneaking through in reconciliation.

 

[stateofbeasley]

I think I can end this thread right here-

Who's more condescending than Limbaugh? O'Reilly? Coulter?

Olbermann by a factor of 10?

They can all go out of business as far as I'm concerned. Limbaugh is a moron who doesn't know what he is talking about, and Olbermann froths at the mouth like a confused mental patient who should be in a mental ward instead of MSNBC.

They are little more than clowns.

 

[nick1985]

Olbermann froths at the mouth like a confused mental patient who should be in a mental ward instead of MSNBC.

I thought that was a mental ward?

 

[soccerballtux]

just playing by the rules of the game you started-- claiming the engineers were more intelligent...

I claimed no such thing. What I said was that Engineers evaluate choices based on quantitative factors. Numbers. Physical and chemical properties. Cost/benefit analysis. Engineers design systems. You don't evaluate your design choices based on whether a particular design might be "socialist" or "liberal" or some other meaningless buzz phrase. Not if you want to stay in business.

I'm done arguing with you. Further debate is pointless because most of your responses are either incoherent, ignorant, or illogical.

At least mine aren't attacks like calling my posts "incoherent". Here I'll make it perfectly coherent: in your own words--

Engineers generally evaluate issues on a quantitative basis. The sort of ignorant emotional appeals that the radical right uses to appeal to people are less effective with Engineers.

You are saying that they are "less effective" because engineers are not ignorant to emotional appeals.
We can parse grammar, but if one says someone is "not ignorant" then they mean they are smarter than [the radical right] that you referred to.

edit: just checked this post over with friend, he says it's coherent and logical.

 

[soccerballtux]

The non-partisan CBO concluded that the bill would have saved money and insured tens of millions of currently uninsured. The basic ideas behind the bill were sound: a mandate of insurance in exchange for no denial for prior conditions, and subsidies for the poorest of Americans. The vast majority of people -- those on Medicaid and with employer insurance, would not have seen any drastic changes.

This model works well in Western Europe, and it leaves the insurance and medical care in the hands of the private sector.

The worst excesses, the bribes to Ben Nelson and Mary Laundru, would never have survived the House/Senate reconciliation process. Myself and everyone else not living in Nebraska or Louisiana would have raised hell if there was a chance of this sneaking through in reconciliation.

Only over the first 10 years.
The CBO takes a scenario that a senator or official sets up and runs with it, they do not ask questions.

They were told

How much money will we save over 10 years with this bill if we start paying for it now, but don't use it for 4 years, meaning we only actually use it for 6?

And the answer was "save ~$1xx Billion".
In other words, it only saves us money because we don't use it for 40% of the next 10 years.

In other news, my gas guzzler saves me money if I save up money for 4 years and take the bus, and then drive it for 6.
It is not affordable for me to drive it all the time, aka 10 years of use out of 10.
That's why this bill died.

 

[Atreus21]

Did it ever occur to you that they are overwhelmingly liberal because they have never had to deal with reality??

Oh... and for the record academic liberals aren't concerned about facts and figures, they are concerned about efforts and feelings and 'trying.' Like my liberal arts teacher who talked about how Jimmy Carter gave that speech about turning the heat down during the oil crisis and how wonderful it was that he 'cared.'

I was thinking something similar. I think the generalization that academia is heavily liberal can be answered with a not entirely disagreeable statement.

Teachers work with theory, not practice. Communism looks great in theory. Practice indicates quite the opposite, at least on a large scale.

From this assumption stems another generalization: The majority of elderly persons lean conservative. The elderly have experience (practice), which overrules social education (theory).

It is for this reason that I can't help but smile whenever liberals say Reality has a leftward slant.

 

[UberNeuman]

Why are liberals so condescending?

Because we have fancy mustard on our hamburgers...

 

[soccerballtux]

I was thinking something similar. I think the generalization that academia is heavily liberal can be answered with a not entirely disagreeable statement.

Teachers work with theory, not practice. Communism looks great in theory. Practice indicates quite the opposite, at least on a large scale.

From this assumption stems another generalization: The majority of elderly persons lean conservative. The elderly have experience (practice), which overrules social education (theory).

It is for this reason that I can't help but smile whenever liberals say Reality has a leftward slant.

Hm, that's interesting.
Possibility #2-- they are on the government dole [tenure].
I think your reason has more inherent proof than mine though.

 

[stateofbeasley]

At least mine aren't attacks like calling my posts "incoherent". Here I'll make it perfectly coherent: in your own words--



You are saying that they are "less effective" because engineers are not ignorant to emotional appeals.
We can parse grammar, but if one says someone is "not ignorant" then they mean they are smarter than [the radical right] that you referred to.

This should be addressed, even though I really have nothing more to say to anyone on this topic.

Ignorance has little to do with intelligence. Ignorance is lack of knowledge. One could be an expert on physics, and completely ignorant on the subject of iPhone applications or Digital Rights Management. People ranting about "socialism" and "death panels" are doing so because it appeals to their emotional fears.

There are also different kinds of intelligence. An engineer might theoretically be good at math or quantitative assessments, but utterly inept at the art of persuasion or dealmaking.

It is more the thought process of an engineer that in theory should make them less susceptible to the type of pandering that pundits engage in. An engineer would draw a block diagram or analyse the components of proposed reform, and see that there is no "death panel" or "government takeover" of insurance companies.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Why are liberals so condescending?
Because we have fancy mustard on our hamburgers...

You forgot to mention the Belgian endive on your salads...

 

[soccerballtux]

This should be addressed, even though I really have nothing more to say to anyone on this topic.

Ignorance has little to do with intelligence. Ignorance is lack of knowledge. One could be an expert on physics, and completely ignorant on the subject of iPhone applications or Digital Rights Management. People ranting about "socialism" and "death panels" are doing so because it appeals to their emotional fears.

There are also different kinds of intelligence. An engineer might theoretically be good at math or quantitative assessments, but utterly inept at the art of persuasion or dealmaking.

It is more the thought process of an engineer that in theory should make them less susceptible to the type of pandering that pundits engage in. An engineer would draw a block diagram or analyse the components of proposed reform, and see that there is no "death panel" or "government takeover" of insurance companies.

oh common that's such a stretch...can you at least see how I at least might have taken what you were saying to mean "more intelligent than"?

 

[Carmen813]

Only over the first 10 years.
The CBO takes a scenario that a senator or official sets up and runs with it, they do not ask questions.

They were told


And the answer was "save ~$1xx Billion".
In other words, it only saves us money because we don't use it for 40% of the next 10 years.

In other news, my gas guzzler saves me money if I save up money for 4 years and take the bus, and then drive it for 6.
It is not affordable for me to drive it all the time, aka 10 years of use out of 10.
That's why this bill died.

You might have been on to something if the 10-20 year projections supported what you said. They don't.

 

[soccerballtux]

Only over the first 10 years.
The CBO takes a scenario that a senator or official sets up and runs with it, they do not ask questions.

They were told


And the answer was "save ~$1xx Billion".
In other words, it only saves us money because we don't use it for 40% of the next 10 years.

In other news, my gas guzzler saves me money if I save up money for 4 years and take the bus, and then drive it for 6.
It is not affordable for me to drive it all the time, aka 10 years of use out of 10.
That's why this bill died.

You might have been on to something if the 10-20 year projections supported what you said. They don't.

edit wrong thread lol

 

[soccerballtux]

You might have been on to something if the 10-20 year projections supported what you said. They don't.

please link the CBO 10-20 year projections, I have not seen these. Everything I have seen has been "next 10 years".

 

[Craig234]

Liberals are so condescending because it's a useful propaganda attack by the right.

The right has attacked the left as 'not loyal', as 'weak on communism', as 'fiscally irresponsible'. as 'unable to keep the country safe', 'against family values'. all kinds of things.

These are things that play to the uninformed's vulnerabilities to believe the attacks.

It doesn't matter how much the facts contradicts the attacks - if the Republicans run up the massive deficits for 12 years while the Democrats bring them down over 8 years to zero. If the big attack on America happens under the 'strong on protecting the country' Republican's presidency. If the 'party of family values' has the most personal bhavior scandals.

It's a very simple thing. For example, attack the Democrats as not being for family values. People hear that and say "I'm for family values, so I'm against the Democrats". It's not very rational to ask "wait a moment, are they really against family values? Or am I hearing that so much in the mewdia because there's big money to pay for the attack propaganda, because the money comes from special business interests who want to get rich against the public interest and pay for the politicians who will let them?"

When Democrats are on the defensive saying they don't hate families, the campaign becomes about that and not the real issues. It works again and again.

It doesn't matter what the attack is, as long as it appeals to something in the uninformed voter. It disrupts the campaign and wins electiions over and over.

"He pals around with terrorists". How ridiculous does that sound in hindsight, yet it was said at speech after speech by the VP candidate.

It's worked over and over - "he said he invented the intenet", "he lied about his combat to get medals".

The myth of the 'limousine liberal' is a strong one by the real limousine crowd, used well to attack the people looking out for the public.

This is just one more such dishonest propaganda attack, paid for by the usual people.

 

[First]

And engineers are largely conservative or libertarian,

No they're not, they're overwhelmingly liberal, progressive, or in many cases indifferent.

 

[sandorski]

It's not that I'm Condescending, it's that you will never Understand

 

[Jhhnn]

Olbermann by a factor of 10?

I'll give you Olbermann, (not by a factor of 10) and raise you Beck, Hannity, Ingraham, Medved, Savage and a few hundred other Rush wannabees... along with the sanctimonious superiority of the mouthpieces of the Christian Right.

Get my point?

Conservatives seem to thrive on their own special persecution complex, seemingly oblivious to their own recent actions. Their leadership was arrogantly raving about a permanent majority not so long ago, threatening nuclear option in the Senate, fearmongering the WoT most effectively on their domestic opposition, spouting economic and foreign policy drivel the whole time.

When it all fell down, they started whining about how progressives were "talking down at them"... never engaging in the kind of soul searching and introspection that sensible people would engage in faced with disasters of their own making. Deep in denial, conservatives just claim they were right all along, circle their wagons around the political waterhole, try to keep their perceived "enemies" from getting a drink.

The people and pundits they followed ardently for the last 8 years? Why, they weren't "real" conservatives, at all, right?

 

[LegendKiller]

Because they tout people like Palin as intellectual and "right", yet she's an empty headed dittohead.

 

[djmartins]

The mass hysteria over the mythical "death panels" comes to mind. Cries of "socialist" and "rationing". I mean, give me a fucking break. We already have faceless suits at HMOs telling our doctors what they can and cannot do. Why aren't people complaining about the real problems instead running away from bogey men?

Yes, we already have these problems so letting the Fed take over will make it better?
That is called "out of touch with reality".
We need to get the government out of health care and get a handle
of the rampant corporate corruption we suffer from.


regards,
DJ

 

[alphatarget1]

In essence, liberals are right because their rational (to them) thought process tells them they are. Conservatives are right because the authorities say so.

I think what's fascinating is that both ideological realms are extremely hypocritical: Hardcore conservatives are supposed to be for a smaller government, but you are totally right about them following the authorities when it comes to national security and stuff. Hardcore liberals are supposed to be accepting of other ideas, except when it doesn't agree with their own in which case they resort to saying condescending things. Liberals are pro civil liberty, except when it comes time for citizens to own a gun because they cannot be trusted with that force... the examples go on and on.

I think there are sane people in both groups who can compromise- the problem is that it's the hardcore people on both sides who are passionate enough to devote so much time into starting a movement, let's say.

For the record, I have never met a conservative in TX who belittled my opinion because I thought differently. I know plenty of liberals (in CA) who are ready to trash and call people stupid for not thinking the way they do/not trying to understand why people disagree with them.

 

[dmcowen674]

Thread Title: Why are liberals so condescending?
Quote in OP: Sums up my thoughts about the lib posters here. A nasty crowd of villainy and scum the likes of which the internet has never seen before.

Amazing isn't it. Its right there in front of your nose, but yet its so hard for you to see.

"villainy and scum"

Awwww thank you.

That means I have done a heck of a job defending my country from the likes of you and all Republicans that hate America.

 

[blackangst1]

Liberals are so condescending because it's a useful propaganda attack by the right.


It's a very simple thing. For example, attack the Democrats as not being for family values. People hear that and say "I'm for family values, so I'm against the Democrats". It's not very rational to ask "wait a moment, are they really against family values? Or am I hearing that so much in the mewdia because there's big money to pay for the attack propaganda, because the money comes from special business interests who want to get rich against the public interest and pay for the politicians who will let them?"

Pretty good assesment of the progressive's elitist dealing with the right I would say. Im surprised!